This is what the United States gets for being fickle and unreliable when it comes to our allies and our enemies. We don't stop politics at the shoreline the way we used to, and it's cost us much life and treasure over the past 50 years or so.
Plus given the enemy India is likely to fight they didn't really need the highest end, highest tech fighters.
Hopefully this will shake up the US a bit. I doubt it, but I can hope.
Piffle and nonsense--the article is basically an elaborate form of "have you stopped beating your wife"?
Any objective scientist will tell you that the AGW idea doesn't remotely reach the standards of a real "theory". It *does* explain some observations in the same way Creationism does, but only by cherry picking data and incorrectly confusing "correlation" with "causation". Anybody can show correlation (http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php) but that don't mean one thing about *causation*. All the thermometers in the world showing temperatures are great to see and it's always good to have reliable data (though apparently not all of the AGW stuff is all that reliable--http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/hurrell.soundings.jclim98.pdf), but one needs *proof* to tie everything together.
If the Earth is warming, are increasing CO2 levels the cause? Doubtful. CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261) and the current CO2 levels are practically rock-bottom compared to the bulk of the collected data (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm).
The AGW theorists have made numerous predictions using their various software models, which have been shown to be simplistic and unworthy of a first year software student (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available). As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course.
Nor frankly do those predictions pan out. Just a few years ago Al Gore (basing his statements on information various AGW alarmists were spouting at the time) said that "...the Arctic will be ice free by 2013..." (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/horror-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicts-north-pole-will-be-completely-ice-free-by-next-year/). I'm guessing that Mother Nature didn't get the word.
AGW models also predicted that the ocean deep sea temperatures would rise by approximately 1 degree Centigrade (http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025). It would seem that there are some parameters missing from their calculations.
Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. This hasn't happened and can't without a few dozen parallel Earths. You *test* a hypothesis by performing controlled experiments and seeing how well observations match experimental results as well as predictions. We've already shown that many of the predictions are flawed, and as to experiments--hard to do without some Earths to test against.
AGW is at best an unproven hypothesis in much the same way as Creationism is, with fewer religious overtones. It doesn't belong in schools any more than Creationism does, and for very similar reasons. Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college.
...since they add a week every "5 or 6 years" I don't really see any particular advantage to this method vs. the one we have now.
Sorry, not very compelling to me...
Ferretman
IF you were a scientist you'd know that you can't disprove a negative.
AGW makes the *claim* that humans are responsible--it's up to the theory to *prove* it.
Newton had a theory about gravitation, proposed experiments to prove it, and then DID so.
Einstein had a theory about relativity, proposed a bunch of experiments to prove (and disprove it), and conducted some. Some were beyond the technology of the time but have been tested in the past decade or so.
AGW insists that mankind is responsible for warming, without *proving* it. What studies are out there (and IEA makes the same fundamental mistake) confuse correlation with causation--and of course they're not remotely the same thing.
Or maybe it was all the "this is *absolutely* our LAST CHANCE to do something!" declarations at the last couple of IPC meetings (each of each have experienced record cold/snow/rain)?
All of these "sky is falling" cries are getting a bit hard to believe....especially when there's no evidence for the claims.
That of course is IF you believe the IPCC report. I don't.
While there are many elements of it that are compelling and it cites some good anecdotal evidence regarding a general warming trend it errs while it tries to assign cause to mankind. Any scientist knows that you *can't* do such a thing without experiment, and in this case that would mean a bunch of parallel Earths as test beds--and I don't see any of those lying around.
Further AGW doesn't offer any experiments to *disprove* the theory, which is required for any true scientific study. It instead cites, over and over again, various studies that seem to show a warming trend and then makes a leap to assign cause--essentially confusing correlation with causation. It's a mistake commonly made when one is pushing a particular agenda.
There's a *lot* of work yet to be done before one could begin to even think about cause. In the meantime some of the proposed solutions--the ones that DON'T require new rules/regulations/government--make tons of sense with or without AGW. Diversity out our energy resources with solar, wind, and tidal. Recycle. Don't buy as much. Build and buy more efficient power supplies, cars, electronics.
But AGW? No...as presented and defended it barely even reaches the level of credibility of Creationism.
I wonder what the electrical consumption is? The main reason we didn't go with a heat pump on my new house is that the pumps would draw too much power from the solar system.
This doesn't surprise me, what with rising electrical costs.
I just completed construction on a new house and went out of my way to put a hefty solar system (30 panels, ~6.6kwh) on it. I absolutely, positively, in every single way love it!
On the one hand I despise taxes of this sort...so called "sin" taxes that are mean to urge one towards doing something or other deemed more desirable.
On the other hand this is being proposed at the *state* level, which is where any such carrot-and-stick philosophy should reside. If Arizonans vote for this then that's certainly their choice.
Not sure how one handles out-of-state residents but you'd probably work it similarly to the way you handle military personnel.
That's precisely my issue, as a scientist.
There's a wealth of mostly credible evidence showing some warming. Haven't seen any that could truly attribute it to mankind's actions.
Ferretman
Slashdot Mirror
We'll figure this out sooner or later.....
This is what the United States gets for being fickle and unreliable when it comes to our allies and our enemies. We don't stop politics at the shoreline the way we used to, and it's cost us much life and treasure over the past 50 years or so.
Plus given the enemy India is likely to fight they didn't really need the highest end, highest tech fighters.
Hopefully this will shake up the US a bit. I doubt it, but I can hope.
Ferretman
Piffle and nonsense--the article is basically an elaborate form of "have you stopped beating your wife"?
Any objective scientist will tell you that the AGW idea doesn't remotely reach the standards of a real "theory". It *does* explain some observations in the same way Creationism does, but only by cherry picking data and incorrectly confusing "correlation" with "causation". Anybody can show correlation (http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php) but that don't mean one thing about *causation*. All the thermometers in the world showing temperatures are great to see and it's always good to have reliable data (though apparently not all of the AGW stuff is all that reliable--http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/hurrell.soundings.jclim98.pdf), but one needs *proof* to tie everything together.
Is the Earth warming? Maybe....the observations are definitely mixed on this (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg , http://isthereglobalwarming.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/2010_2011_winter_2.6753403.gif). (NOTE that the second is a decidedly anti-global warming site.)
If the Earth is warming, are increasing CO2 levels the cause? Doubtful. CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261) and the current CO2 levels are practically rock-bottom compared to the bulk of the collected data (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm).
The AGW theorists have made numerous predictions using their various software models, which have been shown to be simplistic and unworthy of a first year software student (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available). As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course.
Nor frankly do those predictions pan out. Just a few years ago Al Gore (basing his statements on information various AGW alarmists were spouting at the time) said that "...the Arctic will be ice free by 2013..." (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/horror-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicts-north-pole-will-be-completely-ice-free-by-next-year/). I'm guessing that Mother Nature didn't get the word.
AGW models also predicted that the ocean deep sea temperatures would rise by approximately 1 degree Centigrade (http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025). It would seem that there are some parameters missing from their calculations.
Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. This hasn't happened and can't without a few dozen parallel Earths. You *test* a hypothesis by performing controlled experiments and seeing how well observations match experimental results as well as predictions. We've already shown that many of the predictions are flawed, and as to experiments--hard to do without some Earths to test against.
AGW is at best an unproven hypothesis in much the same way as Creationism is, with fewer religious overtones. It doesn't belong in schools any more than Creationism does, and for very similar reasons. Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college.
...since they add a week every "5 or 6 years" I don't really see any particular advantage to this method vs. the one we have now. Sorry, not very compelling to me... Ferretman
What an awesome solar system we've got!
IF you were a scientist you'd know that you can't disprove a negative.
AGW makes the *claim* that humans are responsible--it's up to the theory to *prove* it.
Newton had a theory about gravitation, proposed experiments to prove it, and then DID so.
Einstein had a theory about relativity, proposed a bunch of experiments to prove (and disprove it), and conducted some. Some were beyond the technology of the time but have been tested in the past decade or so.
AGW insists that mankind is responsible for warming, without *proving* it. What studies are out there (and IEA makes the same fundamental mistake) confuse correlation with causation--and of course they're not remotely the same thing.
PROOF is what I (as a scientist) seek.
Well said sir.
...I thought we passed the "irreversible" point back in 1999? At least that's what Hadley Centre said back in 2000:
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/climatechange-11.12.00.htm
Oh wait...maybe I'm confusing this with the 2009 "it's now irreversible" proclamation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7852628.stm
That one came from NOAA.
Or maybe it was all the "this is *absolutely* our LAST CHANCE to do something!" declarations at the last couple of IPC meetings (each of each have experienced record cold/snow/rain)?
All of these "sky is falling" cries are getting a bit hard to believe....especially when there's no evidence for the claims.
Ferretman
That of course is IF you believe the IPCC report. I don't.
While there are many elements of it that are compelling and it cites some good anecdotal evidence regarding a general warming trend it errs while it tries to assign cause to mankind. Any scientist knows that you *can't* do such a thing without experiment, and in this case that would mean a bunch of parallel Earths as test beds--and I don't see any of those lying around.
Further AGW doesn't offer any experiments to *disprove* the theory, which is required for any true scientific study. It instead cites, over and over again, various studies that seem to show a warming trend and then makes a leap to assign cause--essentially confusing correlation with causation. It's a mistake commonly made when one is pushing a particular agenda.
There's a *lot* of work yet to be done before one could begin to even think about cause. In the meantime some of the proposed solutions--the ones that DON'T require new rules/regulations/government--make tons of sense with or without AGW. Diversity out our energy resources with solar, wind, and tidal. Recycle. Don't buy as much. Build and buy more efficient power supplies, cars, electronics.
But AGW? No...as presented and defended it barely even reaches the level of credibility of Creationism.
...that after 150 years AGW theorists would actually be able to provide some *proof*....
Ferret
Ain't technology sweet?
There, that was easy.
The S&P *said* they would do this if the deal wasn't larger.
Oh well.
Five out of five...well done all around.
....in a couple of different filing cabinets. Everything broken out by type (gas, home insurance, car insurance, etc.). Works pretty well.
I wonder what the electrical consumption is? The main reason we didn't go with a heat pump on my new house is that the pumps would draw too much power from the solar system.
Guess the amazing rail system Obama was so enamored of isn't working out all that great after all.....
This doesn't surprise me, what with rising electrical costs.
I just completed construction on a new house and went out of my way to put a hefty solar system (30 panels, ~6.6kwh) on it. I absolutely, positively, in every single way love it!
Ferretman
Sorry, if it's going to subject me to ads then it needs to be free, or so cheap that I'll *feel* like I'm actually getting a deal. Ferretman
On the one hand I despise taxes of this sort...so called "sin" taxes that are mean to urge one towards doing something or other deemed more desirable. On the other hand this is being proposed at the *state* level, which is where any such carrot-and-stick philosophy should reside. If Arizonans vote for this then that's certainly their choice. Not sure how one handles out-of-state residents but you'd probably work it similarly to the way you handle military personnel.
.....that we're only 4 years away from "Mr. Fusion", if the Back to the Future series is any indication..... THAT would be *great*.....
That's precisely my issue, as a scientist. There's a wealth of mostly credible evidence showing some warming. Haven't seen any that could truly attribute it to mankind's actions. Ferretman
...wondered where it went.!
....we can't afford to borrow money from China for this type of stuff.
Well said.